Case Law

This section contains information about recent case law and reports from the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman in relation to complaints made against local authorities. Click on the links below to view the relevant sections:

Case Law

The Supreme Court ruled (An NHS Trust and others v Y) that where a person is in a vegetative state, their family will no longer have to consult a judge when deciding to stop their end of life care if the medical team are also in agreement. Even if the person has not made an advance decision to refuse treatment, where the family and medical team agree it is in the person’s best interests, artificial feeding and hydration can be stopped.

A council lost an appeal over whether a person who has been compulsorily detained in a hospital for mental disorder under the Mental Health Act 1983 and has then been released from detention but still requires after-care services’ (s117) is entitled to require his local authority to provide such services at any time before he has exhausted the sums received in damages from his personal injury claim. Click here to view the ruling: Council loses Appeal over After-care Services and Personal Injury Damages

September 2017: Court of Appeal finds for Council in first appeal on Care Act 2014 provisions

Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman Reports

June 2018 (decision date): Following a complaint to the LGSCO, Richmond Council had to reimburse Mrs K for two months of domiciliary care charges after it did not do enough to inform her she would have to pay a contribution towards her care costs. The Ombudsman also found that the Council took too long to tell her she would have to pay a contribution to the care she received. This did not leave her any time to find alternative care.

April 2018 (decision date): The Ombudsmen find that the complainants’ son, was caused significant injustice when the CCG and Sheffield Council failed to provide adequate support after his care provider terminated its contract and there was no contingency plan in place. The new provider did not meet all his needs and his mental health deteriorated because of the lack of support, culminating in him being admitted to hospital. Following discharge he had to live with his parents; they had little formal support and no carer’s assessment was conducted. This impacted adversely on both the son’s and parents’ wellbeing. There was also a delay in transferring the son between teams which caused further distress, and impacted on his support provision.

February 2018 (decision date): The Ombudsman’s report found that Kingston-upon-Hull Council confused assessment of Mrs X’s eligible needs under the Care Act 2014 with questions about what support she needed and how it should be funded

February 2018 (decision date): Mr N, who has autism and other needs, and his mother had been in receipt of support which included one-to-one care, transport costs and a placement in a care centre. However, the London Borough of Bromley significantly cut the level of support at short notice, without reassessing the family’s needs, leaving the man’s mother to support her son during the holidays. The Ombudsman found fault causing injustice and recommendations are made in the report.